| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8
9
..
12 |
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 441
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
Thinking about it now, if one didn't accept an ionic interaction of the IPA, it would require explanation of why iNAP is a product under certain IPA
ratio and heating conditions, but NAP is a product at other ratios. There is such a distinct difference between iNAP and NAP that I cant imagine IPA
isn't adding to the complex.
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 441
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
These are some pictures of a few hundred μg of uNAP detonating low density PETN. This isn't possible with standard NAP.
  
|
|
|
Microtek
National Hazard
Posts: 872
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Judging from the first picture of the uNAP, I would guess that your scales are playing tricks on you (some electronic scales have difficulty measuring
amounts very close to zero, and will just round off digitally). That certainly looks more like ca. 5 mg than just a few hundred ug. By the way, the
substance you term uNAP in these pictures look exactly like what I get with my version of the stirred precipitation method.
Many materials show markedly different properties based on the morphology and particle size. Some so much so that they appear to be completely
different materials. The NAP that I make is also perfectly able to initiate PETN in amounts like these.
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 441
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
In the photo, it may look like a lot of material because that particular test had sprinkled material over a wide surface area. If the amount of
material were consolidated, it appears very small. It broke apart when transferring with tweezers and powderized on the foil. I calibrate and level
this scale. To the best of my knowledge, it accurately discerns 1 mg weights. Of course in sub milligram masses, it is difficult to accurately work,
so I reference the perforation diameters in Al foil for comparison measurements. I've found it is difficult to achieve small diameter perforations in
foil with other forms. There are limitations in the minimal diameters that can be achieved with NAP versus uNAP. I have also made batches of NAP with
stirring as you suggested and in my judgement, these are different performance materials. I have stirred at 250 rpm during precipitation but the
crystal size is still much larger and different in performance than ultrasonicated precipitation.
I will attempt to take some more images to hopefully better demonstrate scale. It would really be best to simply replicate it on your end to witness
any difference observed first hand.
I think all three of these materials, NAP, iNAP and uNAP are distinct enough in performance and character to justify differentiation. Similarly to
service lead azide, dextrinated and PVC azide. I think these NAP materials differentiate in quality even more than azide modification techniques,
however.
It is my opinion that iNAP likely has complex interaction with isopropyl groups, beyond simply modifying the crystal in precipitation. That's my
honest judgement to my own limitations of measurement and creative testing. I'm not married to that conclusion. It's just my best hypothesis. Anyone
is welcomed to examine these materials and disprove these opinions or demonstrate any other conclusion.
There have been quite a few reproductions of these materials even outside of science madness, and they are consistently differentiated in performance
across different users, using different processes, in different locations across the world. When the ideas are challenged without any measurements or
proofs, it makes it difficult to take the criticism seriously. If you were experimenting with these materials, I believe it would likely influence
your conclusion. It did mine.
[Edited on 19-10-2024 by Hey Buddy]
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 441
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
uNAP Common Minimum Foil Perforation Diameter Example 1
  
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 441
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
uNAP Common Minimum Foil Perforation Diameter Example 2
  
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 441
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
These masses are certainly less than 1 mg. If someone can detonate PETN with less than a mg of NAP or perforate a 5mm hole in Al foil, then I will
reconsider my opinion on the significance of uNAP designation. iNAP will have to be analyzed by more capable chemists to determine what is going on
exactly. Regardless, all three materials are different in performance and sensitivity necessitating separate designations.
  
|
|
|
Microtek
National Hazard
Posts: 872
Registered: 23-9-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: |
When the ideas are challenged without any measurements or proofs, it makes it difficult to take the criticism seriously. |
I am not trying to attack you or your work, I'm simply asking questions and putting forward my counterhypothesis to explain the results. I haven't
been following this thread closely for the past year, but if you would reiterate your method for producing uNAP I would be happy to see if I can
reproduce your results. I have tried using the search function, but the earliest mention of uNAP the engine turned up did not contain much more
information than just the use of ultrasonication.
When using stirring to modify crystal size, the RPM obviously makes a large difference (the faster you go, the smaller the crystals will be). I was
using somewhat more than 250 RPM (400-500 IIRC), so that may be the reason.
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 441
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Microtek  |
| Quote: |
When the ideas are challenged without any measurements or proofs, it makes it difficult to take the criticism seriously. |
I am not trying to attack you or your work, I'm simply asking questions and putting forward my counterhypothesis to explain the results. I haven't
been following this thread closely for the past year, but if you would reiterate your method for producing uNAP I would be happy to see if I can
reproduce your results. I have tried using the search function, but the earliest mention of uNAP the engine turned up did not contain much more
information than just the use of ultrasonication.
When using stirring to modify crystal size, the RPM obviously makes a large difference (the faster you go, the smaller the crystals will be). I was
using somewhat more than 250 RPM (400-500 IIRC), so that may be the reason. |
I did not mean to suggest this as an attack. I respect any opinion you put forward (even if it were an attack). I meant that the situation becomes
hearsay if there is no demonstrated measurement or comparison or something to observe. I am using this method for both iNAP and uNAP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR_9GZlIRRo&t
[Edited on 19-10-2024 by Hey Buddy]
[Edited on 19-10-2024 by Hey Buddy]
|
|
|
MineMan
International Hazard
Posts: 1013
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Hey Buddy | In the photo, it may look like a lot of material because that particular test had sprinkled material over a wide surface area. If the amount of
material were consolidated, it appears very small. It broke apart when transferring with tweezers and powderized on the foil. I calibrate and level
this scale. To the best of my knowledge, it accurately discerns 1 mg weights. Of course in sub milligram masses, it is difficult to accurately work,
so I reference the perforation diameters in Al foil for comparison measurements. I've found it is difficult to achieve small diameter perforations in
foil with other forms. There are limitations in the minimal diameters that can be achieved with NAP versus uNAP. I have also made batches of NAP with
stirring as you suggested and in my judgement, these are different performance materials. I have stirred at 250 rpm during precipitation but the
crystal size is still much larger and different in performance than ultrasonicated precipitation.
I will attempt to take some more images to hopefully better demonstrate scale. It would really be best to simply replicate it on your end to witness
any difference observed first hand.
I think all three of these materials, NAP, iNAP and uNAP are distinct enough in performance and character to justify differentiation. Similarly to
service lead azide, dextrinated and PVC azide. I think these NAP materials differentiate in quality even more than azide modification techniques,
however.
It is my opinion that iNAP likely has complex interaction with isopropyl groups, beyond simply modifying the crystal in precipitation. That's my
honest judgement to my own limitations of measurement and creative testing. I'm not married to that conclusion. It's just my best hypothesis. Anyone
is welcomed to examine these materials and disprove these opinions or demonstrate any other conclusion.
There have been quite a few reproductions of these materials even outside of science madness, and they are consistently differentiated in performance
across different users, using different processes, in different locations across the world. When the ideas are challenged without any measurements or
proofs, it makes it difficult to take the criticism seriously. If you were experimenting with these materials, I believe it would likely influence
your conclusion. It did mine.
[Edited on 19-10-2024 by Hey Buddy] |
Ahh, there was a YouTube channel discussing all of this.
|
|
|
MineMan
International Hazard
Posts: 1013
Registered: 29-3-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Hey Buddy | In the photo, it may look like a lot of material because that particular test had sprinkled material over a wide surface area. If the amount of
material were consolidated, it appears very small. It broke apart when transferring with tweezers and powderized on the foil. I calibrate and level
this scale. To the best of my knowledge, it accurately discerns 1 mg weights. Of course in sub milligram masses, it is difficult to accurately work,
so I reference the perforation diameters in Al foil for comparison measurements. I've found it is difficult to achieve small diameter perforations in
foil with other forms. There are limitations in the minimal diameters that can be achieved with NAP versus uNAP. I have also made batches of NAP with
stirring as you suggested and in my judgement, these are different performance materials. I have stirred at 250 rpm during precipitation but the
crystal size is still much larger and different in performance than ultrasonicated precipitation.
I will attempt to take some more images to hopefully better demonstrate scale. It would really be best to simply replicate it on your end to witness
any difference observed first hand.
I think all three of these materials, NAP, iNAP and uNAP are distinct enough in performance and character to justify differentiation. Similarly to
service lead azide, dextrinated and PVC azide. I think these NAP materials differentiate in quality even more than azide modification techniques,
however.
It is my opinion that iNAP likely has complex interaction with isopropyl groups, beyond simply modifying the crystal in precipitation. That's my
honest judgement to my own limitations of measurement and creative testing. I'm not married to that conclusion. It's just my best hypothesis. Anyone
is welcomed to examine these materials and disprove these opinions or demonstrate any other conclusion.
There have been quite a few reproductions of these materials even outside of science madness, and they are consistently differentiated in performance
across different users, using different processes, in different locations across the world. When the ideas are challenged without any measurements or
proofs, it makes it difficult to take the criticism seriously. If you were experimenting with these materials, I believe it would likely influence
your conclusion. It did mine.
[Edited on 19-10-2024 by Hey Buddy] |
Ahh, there was a YouTube channel discussing all of this.
|
|
|
Etanol
Hazard to Others
Posts: 191
Registered: 27-2-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The real accuracy of Chinese electronic scales is 5...10 divisions. That is, for scales with a division of 1 mg, the real accuracy is 5...10 mg.
To get a submilligram mass, you should weigh about 10mg on the scales, then divide it 2 times, 4 times and so on.
I have never heard the alcohols form a complex or clatrate compound. But I know that the solubility of perchlorates decreases in the row
water>methanol>ethanol>isopropanol. This leads to incomplete reactions in anhydrous isopropyl alcohol.
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 441
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
I'm not going to argue with someone on the internet about a supposed inaccuracy of a cheap scale. I have more than one scale, and more than one
calibration weight to cross reference scales. I already wrote, to the best of my knowledge the scale is accurate to the mg. If you don't accept that,
it's your problem. The scale of minimum detonation mass is verified to be microgram by other people that have prepared the material, with much more
expensive scales than I possess, so whatever point you're attempting to make is irrelevant.
What are you even claiming? --"Chinese scales are inferior, thus your scale is inaccurate, thus your measurements of masses are inaccurate, thus the
material is not performing as claimed" Is that what you're suggesting?
These are tiny, tiny masses. Anyone familiar with NTz and NAP will recognize the significance from the images alone. They fit on the end of a pen
head. I have tetrazole reference materials for comparison. It is in the tetrazole territory in both det velocity 8km/s + and minimal detonation
masses. If you don't agree with these findings then you can probe with your own research. Speculation is worthless. The whole internet is ripe with
speculation, it's like a rectum, everyone has it. Pull some data or comparisons. That is the only thing useful, not elongating these threads with
needless disagreement. You disagree, fine, prove it.
As for iNAP, I suppose anything is possible with the structure. I was suggesting that IPA is complexing. Perhaps it isnt. Perhaps you can also
investigate that while you're researching uNAP, then after you have examined it, make your own valuable determination. That would be a post worth
reading.
The behavior of IPA is very unusual in this reaction. There isn't an analogous phenomenon that takes place with other alcohols, it is unique to IPA.
It could be a clathrate, co-crystal, or simply dirty NAP as you have claimed. In my opinion, it seems likely to be complexing, the crystal is clearly
different, I posted a 1500x digital microscope image to show the crystal differences. Apparently, those images are ambiguous, to you (not me). My
scale measurements to demonstrate uNAP are ambiguous, to you (not me). The images of detonation demonstrations are ambiguous, to you (not me). Now
it's time for you to do some testing and produce something other than rhetoric to support your own arguments which you've put forward.
It is your responsibility to demonstrate what is going on with this unknown IPA mechanism, or at least verify that it is simply NAP diluted with
contamination as you claimed. It is also on you to demonstrate that uNAP does not detonate at the microgram scale.
[Edited on 20-10-2024 by Hey Buddy]
|
|
|
Laboratory of Liptakov
International Hazard
Posts: 1411
Registered: 2-9-2014
Location: Technion Haifa
Member Is Offline
Mood: old jew
|
|
To lighten the thread, I say: ...In my opinion, the Nickel Aminoguanidine perchlorate does not work at all.....
Development of primarily - secondary substances CHP (2015) Lithex (2022) Brightelite (2023) Nitrocelite and KC primer (2024)
|
|
|
Etanol
Hazard to Others
Posts: 191
Registered: 27-2-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Perhaps my comment looks too sharply because of the language barrier.
I just indicated how to get a higher accuracy of measurements based on my experience with many scales so that you can quickly find the truth.
My laboratory capabilities are limited, so my own check will take a long time and you probably get ahead of me.
It is great that you have made microphotography of your substance. And these microphotography clearly show the multi-components of the IPA-NAP.
The most simple explanation of the uniqueness of IPA is its poor dissolving ability relative to water or ethyl alcohol.
In addition, I would advise you to change your “detonation” criterion, since a very thin foil can be torn not only under the influence of the
brisant action of detonation, but also from the fougasse effect of explosive combustion.
To talk about detonation, you should select the thickness of the metal foil in accordance with the mass of the sample in the range of approximately
1/5 ... 1/10 from the size of the portion of the substance.
For 1 mg (1 mm3), this should be at least 100 microns. Household aluminum foil has a thickness of 10 ... 15 microns, so it can be torn from the
non-detonation explosive of 1 mg of substance.
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 441
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Etanol | Perhaps my comment looks too sharply because of the language barrier.
I just indicated how to get a higher accuracy of measurements based on my experience with many scales so that you can quickly find the truth.
My laboratory capabilities are limited, so my own check will take a long time and you probably get ahead of me.
It is great that you have made microphotography of your substance. And these microphotography clearly show the multi-components of the IPA-NAP.
The most simple explanation of the uniqueness of IPA is its poor dissolving ability relative to water or ethyl alcohol.
In addition, I would advise you to change your “detonation” criterion, since a very thin foil can be torn not only under the influence of the
brisant action of detonation, but also from the fougasse effect of explosive combustion.
To talk about detonation, you should select the thickness of the metal foil in accordance with the mass of the sample in the range of approximately
1/5 ... 1/10 from the size of the portion of the substance.
For 1 mg (1 mm3), this should be at least 100 microns. Household aluminum foil has a thickness of 10 ... 15 microns, so it can be torn from the
non-detonation explosive of 1 mg of substance. |
These statements just don't possess significant substance to me. I'm not offended by any sharpness of any statement you would make. You can be as
direct as you want in your communication. I'm not offended at all. I'm annoyed that you are so lazy and unwilling to put in the effort to demonstrate
your claims, but readily willing to offer definitive or insinuative claims with no data, imagery or demonstration. These threads stay up for a long
time, people search this sort of information out and will continue in the future. When SM is gone, people will continue to archive the information and
instead of viewing responses that help understand the material in examination, people will have to wade through the posts that dont have much
substance. The speculation without demonstration is counter productive to the development of the material. It is good that you have a counter
hypothesis in response. It should be accompanied by demonstration, not theoretical rhetoric.
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 441
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
I suppose it depends on the definition of "work". For detonating secondary explosives, it works alright.
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 441
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Etanol |
In addition, I would advise you to change your “detonation” criterion, since a very thin foil can be torn not only under the influence of the
brisant action of detonation, but also from the fougasse effect of explosive combustion.
To talk about detonation, you should select the thickness of the metal foil in accordance with the mass of the sample in the range of approximately
1/5 ... 1/10 from the size of the portion of the substance.
For 1 mg (1 mm3), this should be at least 100 microns. Household aluminum foil has a thickness of 10 ... 15 microns, so it can be torn from the
non-detonation explosive of 1 mg of substance. |
I don't know what your definition of detonation is, uNAP detonates secondary explosives in sub mg quantities. Insensitive secondaries that don't
explode unless struck or detonated by another explosive, they detonate unconfined on top of sub mg quantities of uNAP. That is about the minimum
limitation, somewhere in the sub mg mass, beyond that the uNAP just starts launching secondary explosive in the air like confetti. When it does
detonate a secondary, There is some detonation fade out, due to the secondary being unconfined and low density, this is related to the sympathetic
sensitivity of the secondary, but it detonates for sure. Equivalent quantities of standard NAP are incapable of this, as best as could be determined
from my testing.
The reason foil is used, is to demonstrate comparison between materials: There is simply a limitation of minimum detonation perforation diameter of
primary explosives. Something like PbNATz for example, can exceed the minimal diameter of uNAP, where as NAP, whether a powder or a large slow
crystal, is incapable of perforating the same scale of small diameter hole. That is according to my testing. It might be the case that you can achieve
5mm holes in foil with standard NAP. I have not been able to do this. I've been testing this material for a year now, continuously. It doesn't matter
the mils of the foil thickness, because it is arbitrary. The foil is only used as a constant medium to comparably measure the affect of the
detonations. The only thing that matters is maintaining the same roll of foil between the various materials so that accurate comparison can be made.
The greater minimum detonation capability of uNAP agrees with findings of other phenomenon such as detonator efficiency studies. I attached a PDF of a
study on detonator efficiencies. On p. 664 it discusses the phenomenon of increased efficiency of detonation correlating to the diameter of a
detonator body. The smaller diameter, the greater relative efficiency. Because ultrasonication results in disruption of the boundary layer of
crystallization, it forms smaller diameter crystals, smaller than the diameter of mechanically disrupted material. Thus the crystals are cylindrical
in shape, and follow the same principal as found in detonator studies, the smaller diameter of cylinder crystal demonstrates greater efficiency per
mass, in detonation. This is likely the result of the geometry of a cylinder and its surface area per volume.
Attachment: det_grant_Factors_affecting_Initiating_efficiency_of_detonators.pdf (759kB)
This file has been downloaded 70 times
[Edited on 20-10-2024 by Hey Buddy]
|
|
|
ManyInterests
National Hazard
Posts: 942
Registered: 19-5-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | | NAP (the unaltered form) can be had as a powder simply by stirring the mix as it precipitates. This disrupts the formation of the beautiful large
crystals and gives a less lustrous powder. In this form it is less sensitive than ETN to both impact and friction, and far more reliable primary than
NHN. |
| Quote: | | When using stirring to modify crystal size, the RPM obviously makes a large difference (the faster you go, the smaller the crystals will be). I was
using somewhat more than 250 RPM (400-500 IIRC), so that may be the reason. |
Is it possible that strong stirring and the ultrasonic vibration are ultimately doing the same thing? I am just throwing that thought out there.
But that being said, I am really getting excited to try to make some uNAP soon and contributing to this discussion. Are you serious about the impact
sensitivity being less than ETN? This is fantastic, because I always hand load and press everything and the reason why I went for NHN was due to it's
insensitivity to friction and impact, but its high sensitivity to flame (even a simple hot wire is sufficient without the need for any additions to
it, as long as it is making direct contact with the material).
I have one question about uNAP/iNAP. Are they just as flame sensitive? Or is something more needed? In all my past detonators I used an e-match that
had nichrome wire loop over a match head that would burn once power is applied to it. But in many detonators I tested, especially with the plastic
bodies, I noticed that in many cases the match head didn't burn and actually survived the initial explosion. It would still burn later when I was
disposing of them. This leads me to believe that only the wire is necessary and the actual match is unnecessary.
Would this also work with uNAP/iNAP/NAP as well? Also in terms of how much it can detonate insensitive secondaries, I am thinking of switching from
melt-cast ETN to RDX as RDX is the superior secondary, but I am wondering if (say) 50 or 100mg of lightly pressed uNAP/iNAP/NAP is sufficient to set
it off? Or is more pressing/quantity needed for it to work?
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 441
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by ManyInterests |
Is it possible that strong stirring and the ultrasonic vibration are ultimately doing the same thing? I am just throwing that thought out there.
|
Yes, if it is possible to magnetic stir precipitate a material which can perforate 5mm holes in foil, or detonate PETN in masses less than a mg, then
NAP and uNAP are identical in performance and there is no reason for a uNAP designation, they are then the same material. If not, then no, they are
not doing the same thing, and are different in performance.
Microtek has claimed this, so I would assume it to be accurate. I have not found a form of NAP that is less impact sensitive than ETN. Once in a
while, a sample will withstand quite an impact, but I judge on average, it is a more sensitive material than ETN. iNAP is close, but slightly more
impact sensitive than ETN in my judgement. ETN is a fairly insensitive secondary explosive. Melt state ETN is more impact sensitive than NAP. iNAP is
insensitive to friction within the capabilities of my testing.
uNAP and NAP detonate at approximately 270 C. iNAP, perhaps a little higher temp.
| Quote: Originally posted by ManyInterests |
Would this also work with uNAP/iNAP/NAP as well? Also in terms of how much it can detonate insensitive secondaries, I am thinking of switching from
melt-cast ETN to RDX as RDX is the superior secondary, but I am wondering if (say) 50 or 100mg of lightly pressed uNAP/iNAP/NAP is sufficient to set
it off? Or is more pressing/quantity needed for it to work? |
No two detonator designs are the same, they have wide ranges. The density of the RDX alters the minimum priming masses. The interface from primary to
secondary influences the transfer of the detonation. 50 or 100 mg is more than enough to detonate RDX. RDX can be detonated with 5 mg of uNAP
confidently. I was attempting to demonstrate in this thread that uNAP detonates PETN at less than 1 mg masses. It's like I'm just writing these posts
to myself.
[Edited on 21-10-2024 by Hey Buddy]
|
|
|
Brightthermite
Hazard to Others
Posts: 133
Registered: 26-6-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by pjig | Brightthermite:
Did you give the reacted materials a longer cool down process? How was your procedures done? |
Procedure - Heat each liquid to a boil, dump all materials in at once, reflux for 5 min. If material formed during this like iNAP it was immediately
dumped out. If not I gave the liquids 10 mins to precipitate. I did not wait longer because if it takes longer to form then 10 mins I might as well
just use water which we know to work and produce a good product.
What did form at 70% looked pretty much identical to what would form with water. Next time I revisit this I'll make some both with water (looking to
test out uNAP and NAP anyway) and compare to the 70%.
|
|
|
Brightthermite
Hazard to Others
Posts: 133
Registered: 26-6-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by ManyInterests |
I am looking at uNAP and iNAP right now due to some difficulties that I am having with NHN going full detonation in non-steel containers. My questions
are concerning its long-term stability and safety in hand loading. |
I cant speak for stability yet but looking at this forum and youtube it seem to be pretty good. Handing was really good. I was able to be much rougher
with it then I ever would be during loading and had no issues. I don't have experience with other primaries to give you a comparison though.
| Quote: Originally posted by ManyInterests |
The way I make my detonators, and I made a lot of them thus far, is to load the secondary first with as much pressure as I can do by hand (I don't
have an arbor press or any mechanical means of loading my caps), followed by topping it with the primary and only very gently tamping it without any
hard pressing (I sometimes tap on the sides of the cap to help the material get more compacted before gently tamping everything down.
I assume this is a safe process for doing it with uNAP or iNAP? |
I would say that's safe with iNAP, I cant speak for uNAP. As long as you have a set up where a cap can go off and not kill you, you should be fine.
Looking at Buddy's research tho be aware that you may have to use some larger loads for iNAP to work well unless you use some kind of reinforcing cap
like I mentioned.
|
|
|
Brightthermite
Hazard to Others
Posts: 133
Registered: 26-6-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Hey Buddy | | Quote: Originally posted by ManyInterests |
Is it possible that strong stirring and the ultrasonic vibration are ultimately doing the same thing? I am just throwing that thought out there.
|
Yes, if it is possible to magnetic stir precipitate a material which can perforate 5mm holes in foil, or detonate PETN in masses less than a mg, then
NAP and uNAP are identical in performance and there is no reason for a uNAP designation, they are then the same material. If not, then no, they are
not doing the same thing, and are different in performance. |
I take it you have not investigated this much yet? Again when I am able to revisit this I'll check it out. Im very curious and it would save some
people having to get an ultrasonic cleaner if they are similar enough materials.
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 441
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Brightthermite |
I take it you have not investigated this much yet? Again when I am able to revisit this I'll check it out. Im very curious and it would save some
people having to get an ultrasonic cleaner if they are similar enough materials.
|
Yes, I have investigated it. Ultrasonic crystallization was first tried because of the better performance of small crystals from large crystals.
I have multiple sizes and grades of NAP from small powders to large crystals. uNAP out performs everything Ive produced. Most likely, because it is a
smaller crystal.
Microtek has claimed he is achieving the same performance as uNAP from stirred precipitation.
My attempts at stirred precipitation are at 250 rpm. Microtek stated he is using a higher RPM of 500 or so. I am working on some experiments at 500
rpm and up today to more accurately examine if this can be replicated. If the same criterion can be met, I see no reason for uNAP to be differentiated
from NAP at all. Of course I don't suspect it is possible at all, because I have attempted it. Still, if Microtek says it, I trust his judgement.
I bought the ultrasonic cleaner used to develop uNAP for $25. The same principle of crystal disruption via sonication should apply to anything else so
it is a worthwhile investment IMO.
[Edited on 21-10-2024 by Hey Buddy]
[Edited on 21-10-2024 by Hey Buddy]
|
|
|
Hey Buddy
Hazard to Others
Posts: 441
Registered: 3-11-2020
Location: Bushwhacker Country
Member Is Offline
|
|
I followed Microtek's recommendation to stir at higher rpm than 250. I stirred during precipitation at 1200 rpm, which was aggressive and precipitated
quickly. This produced a pink powder that is able to detonate 5mm holes in foil, it seems just as capable from that point. I have not had success with
transferring detonation to PETN in tiny quantities. Going to attempt some more high magnification images to compare.
[Edited on 21-10-2024 by Hey Buddy]
I've been trying to recreate the small mass detonations of PETN and have not been able to replicate. The difference is small but there appears to be a
difference in high rpm and uNAP materials.
[Edited on 21-10-2024 by Hey Buddy]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8
9
..
12 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
